Actions from the Board of Professional Responsibility

Reinstated
The following attorneys have been reinstated to the practice of law after complying with Supreme Court Rule 21, which requires mandatory continuing legal education: Laurie Scarcellat Andrigeski, Clarkston, Wa.; Donna Ann Byrd, Hixson; Craig J. Donaldson, Greenback; Lisa Ternes Kirkham, Nashville; Richard H. Roberts, Greenville.

The following attorneys have been reinstated to the practice of law after complying with Section 20 of Supreme Court Rule 9, which requires the payment of annual registration fees: Kathryn Connors Soderberg, Melrose, Mass.; J. Randal Tomblin, Germantown.

Censured
A censure declares conduct improper but does not limit the right to practice law.

Memphis attorney Stephen M. Brown was censured by the Board of Professional Responsibility on Jan. 26 for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law while suspended. Brown was suspended for 45 days beginning on July 28, 2006. During that time he prepared, signed and filed an answer in a civil action in his role as vice president of a defendant corporation. When opposing counsel in the case informed him that a licensed attorney was required to represent a corporation, Brown ceased providing legal services and directed the corporation to retain separate counsel. The board concluded that Brown should have known that his actions were improper.

On Jan. 30, the Board of Professional Responsibility imposed a censure on Tony N. Brayton of Memphis. While Brayton was counsel with the Shelby County Public Defender’s office, he represented a defendant appealing a first-degree murder charge. In late February 2006, the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death penalty. Both the client and the state post-conviction defender expected Brayton to file a petition for rehearing with the Tennessee Supreme Court and a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Brayton did neither, and did not inform the client or the post-conviction defender of his decision until after the filing period for such motions had expired. Approximately two months later the post-conviction defender learned of Brayton’s decision and filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court to accept a late-filed petition for writ of certiorari. The request was denied in October 2006. The board found that Brayton did not properly explain to his client or to the post-conviction defender his decision to not file a petition for writ of certiorari and did not remove himself from the case in sufficient time to let another attorney handle the filings.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on Feb. 9 censured Memphis lawyer Ronald L. Coleman for collecting excessive attorney’s fees in a suit brought by a corporation in which his wife had substantial ownership. He submitted a guilty plea in exchange for the censure. The court determined that his actions violated Rule 1.5 and 8.4(a)(d) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct.

W. Allen Barrett, a Nashville attorney, was censured on Feb. 9 for failing to timely file an order and failing to be responsive to client inquiries. A client retained Barrett to handle a child support case. Barrett appeared on behalf of the client on June 23, 2005, at which time the court ruled that the client was entitled to an increase in child support payments. When the client did not receive the increased support, she began leaving messages for Barrett, which he failed to return. Only after the client filed a complaint against Barrett did he submit, over one year late, an order reflecting the increased child support. Barrett admitted that he failed to timely file the order. The Board of Professional Responsibility found that his actions violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 3.2 and 8.4(a)(d) of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct.

Brentwood attorney Charles G. Blackard III was censured by the Board of Professional Responsibility on Feb. 22 for a variety of conduct violations involving two cases. In the first case, Blackard represented a client in a domestic relations matter for more than two years. During that time the client was unable to communicate with him by telephone or mail. After Blackard withdrew from the case, the client and disciplinary counsel made numerous unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the client’s file. In a second domestic relations matter, the client was unable to communicate with Blackard for long periods of time and complained that he was unprepared at hearings and failed to subpoena requested witnesses. Finally, disciplinary counsel reported that Blackard failed to answer four written requests for a response to these complaints. The board found that Blackard violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d) and RPC 8.4(d).

Suspended
Suspension is effective 10 days after issuance, except where immediate suspension is necessary to protect the public. A suspended lawyer may not accept new clients but may continue representing current clients for 30 days. The lawyer must notify all clients, co-counsel and opposing counsel of the suspension order; return to clients any papers or property to which they are entitled; not use the indicia of lawyer, legal assistant or law clerk; and not maintain a presence where the practice of law is conducted. An attorney suspended for one year or more must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning required for admission to the practice of law, and that resumption of his practice would not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, nor be subversive to the public interest. An attorney suspended for less than one year with conditions may resume practice after complying with those conditions. An attorney suspended for less than one year with no conditions may resume practice without reinstatement.

Charles Daniel Collins, a Chattanooga attorney, was suspended from the practice of law on Jan. 25 for two years and six months. In May 2004, the Board of Professional Responsibility filed a petition for discipline against Collins based on four complaints of misconduct. A hearing panel determined that Collins violated numerous disciplinary rules as well as the Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended a six-month suspension. A second petition for discipline was filed against Collins in May 2006 based on four additional complaints. The hearing panel in that case concluded that Collins should be suspended for two years in addition to the six months imposed in the prior case. In suspending Collins, the Supreme Court ordered him to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceeding and comply in all respects with rules that govern the obligations and responsibilities of suspended attorneys.

On Jan. 25, the Supreme Court of Tennessee entered an order suspending the law license of Spring Hill lawyer Clyde E. Harris Jr. for misrepresenting to his employer the hours he had worked. While investigating the case, the Board of Professional Responsibility found that Harris received more than $5,000 in unearned pay. The board determined that he had engaged in criminal acts involving dishonesty, fraud and deceit, and that his misconduct was aggravated by multiple offenses, a pattern of misconduct and dishonest motives. The board recommended that he be suspended for three years and that as a condition of reinstatement, he make full restitution to his employer. The Supreme Court adopted these findings and recommendations.

On Feb. 15, the Supreme Court of Tennessee suspended the law license of Memphis attorney John Louis Dolan Jr. for two years retroactive to May 26, 2005, the date he was first suspended. However, the court gave him credit for one year and allowed him to face probation rather than suspension for the second year. The court also directed Dolan to continue in his monitoring agreement with the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP). At the end of the two-year period in May 2007, Dolan will be eligible to apply for reinstatement.

Memphis attorney Warner Hodges III was suspended on Feb. 15 for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The Tennessee Supreme Court imposed a two-year suspension retroactive to Oct. 1, 2004, the date he was first suspended. In response to the petition for discipline, Hodges admitted that he had practiced law in Mississippi while suspended in Tennessee. He submitted a conditional guilty plea and accepted the suspension. In addition to imposing the suspension, the court directed Hodges to continue in his monitoring agreement with the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) on terms and conditions recommended by the program. The court also stipulated that any reported non-compliance would constitute immediate grounds for summary suspension.

Disbarred
In Tennessee, disbarment becomes effective 10 days after an order of the court. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, a disbarred lawyer must notify all clients, co-counsel and opposing counsel of the disbarment; must deliver to all clients any papers or property to which they are entitled; may not use the indicia of lawyer, counselor at law, legal assistant, law clerk or similar title; and may not maintain a presence or occupy an office where the practice of law is conducted. A lawyer who has been disbarred after hearing or by consent may not apply for reinstatement for at least five years. When applying, the lawyer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that reinstatement would not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar or the administration of justice, nor be subversive to the public interest.

Kathy Ann Sittloh of Murfreesboro was disbarred from the practice of law on Feb. 6. The disbarment was recommended by the Board of Professional Responsibility and imposed by the Tennessee Supreme Court in response to fourteen complaints of misconduct, three of which involved taking money from clients. Sittloh did not answer either of two petitions for discipline and did not appear for a hearing before the board. On Aug. 24, 2006, a default judgment was entered against her and allegations made in the petitions were deemed to have been admitted. The court found that her actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(a), 1.15(a)(d), 1.16(d), 3.2, 5.5(a) and 8.4(a)(b)(c)(d).

• • •

Compiled by Stacey Shrader from information obtained from the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Tennessee Supreme Court